<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><div>Phil,</div><div><br></div><div>While I agree that 4(k) is not well written, at least as concerns IGO/NGOs the issue of sov. Immunity waiver is limited to actions concerning the domain name. This has been upheld in several courts (limiting the nature of the claims) and most recently I have seen it in the Marchex decision in which the court limited the remedies sought by the plaintiff in a default action because the judge felt that the waiver only encompassed issues as to the control over the domain and did not include any right to damages – thus treating the action as an “in rem” action for all intents and purposes (in an In Rem action under the ACPA damages are prohibited). I attach the recommendation of the Magistrate which was adopted by the court.</div><div><br></div><div>However, it is not possible for a losing Respondent to sue “In Rem” unless the order has already been carried out by the registrar. The reason being that prior to domain transfer, the domain is still held by the respondent and thus any “In Rem” action would be moot.</div><div><br></div><div>I do agree that a change is required to 4(k) so as to increase the odds that a losing registrant may have their day in court. At present, courts have almost universally agreed that 4(k) merely allows one to file but doe snot itself create any form of underlying claim that is operative under the local laws of the selected jurisdiction. Thus, to survive a motion to dismiss the registrant must find a valid underlying claim upon which to base the action permitted by 4(k). In the US this is simple because of the ACPA. In other jurisdictions it is not so clear. I am addressing one in the EU and we are in part basing the claim upon the Human Rights Directive which is binding law in all EU member states.</div><div><br></div><div>To make 4(k) really work, several things must be addressed, including IMHO, the following:</div><div><br></div><div>1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Clarify that the UDRP is NOT to be treated as an arbitration under relevant conventions</div><div>2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Clarify that in such an action the intention is to have a de novo proceeding not bound by the Panel Ruling</div><div>3.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Expand the 10 business day rule so as to apply to any action brought in any court of mutual jurisdiction</div><div>4.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Including in the MJ a forced choice for where the Registry resides</div><div>5.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Including in the MJ a forced choice for where ICANN resides</div><div><br></div><div>Paul</div><div><br></div><span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org">gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of "Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp" <<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Reply-To: </span> "Corwin, Philip" <<a href="mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com">pcorwin@verisign.com</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 9:12 PM<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> "<a href="mailto:icann@leap.com">icann@leap.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:icann@leap.com">icann@leap.com</a>>, "<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Option #6 reminder<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;"><div xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--><div lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class="WordSection1"><p class="MsoPlainText"><a name="_MailEndCompose">George:<o:p></o:p></a></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">This email is in my co-chair capacity.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">I have clicked on the pipermail link your provide and find this (excerpt) as your proposal—<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">
<i>paragraph 4(k) of the rules:<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i><o:p> </o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i> <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en">https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en</a><o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i><o:p> </o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i>only specifically contemplates "in personam" court cases brought by<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i>the UDRP respondent (domain owner) against the party who filed the<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i>UDRP (i.e. the UDRP complainant). The relevant part of paragraph 4(k)<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i>is:<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i><o:p> </o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i>"We will then implement the decision unless we have received from you<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i>during that ten (10) business day period official documentation (such<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i>as a copy of a complaint, file-stamped by the clerk of the court) that<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i>*****you have commenced a lawsuit against the complainant in a<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i>jurisdiction to which the complainant has submitted****** under<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i>Paragraph 3(b)(xiii) of the Rules of Procedure. "<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i><o:p> </o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i>(emphasis added, via the asterisks)<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i><o:p> </o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><b><i>However, if the wording was changed very slightly, it would clarify<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><b><i>the situation with regards to "in rem" and/or "quasi in rem" suits,<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><b><i>i.e. the language in the asterisk section above could become:<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><b><i><o:p> </o:p></i></b></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><b><i>"you have commenced a lawsuit ***concerning the domain name**** in a<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><b><i>jurisdiction to which the complainant has submitted"<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i><o:p> </o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i>i.e. by changing "against the complainant" to "concerning the domain<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i>name", the latter language would cover not only in personam actions<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i>brought against the UDRP complainant, but also cover both in rem and<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i>quasi in rem actions too.<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i><o:p> </o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i>[Aside: the language of the UDRP is actually very poorly worded; by<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i>the language of 4(k) as it stands now, it doesn't even say that the<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i>lawsuit against the UDRP complainant even needs to relate to the<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i>domain name under dispute! i.e. you could sue for *any* cause of<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i>action, even unrelated to the domain name, and by a strict reading of<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i>the 4(k) language, the registrar has to not implement the decision!<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i>We'll need to fix that in 2018 or 2019 or beyond, in the RPM working<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i>group PDP...]
<b>(Emphasis added)<o:p></o:p></b></i></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">I want to make sure that your proposal gets thorough review and fair consideration. But the language you have proposed would apply to all UDRP disputes, not just those in which an IGO was the
Complainant, and as such is beyond the scope of this WG’s Charter (as you observe, this UDRP language can be reviewed by the RPM Review WG when it reaches phase 2 of its effort).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">To cure that overbreadth, would it be possible for you to present your proposed language as IGO-specific, either as an amendment to Option C as it was presented in our preliminary consensus
call, or as a free-standing option? I think that would best assist the WG in fully considering it.
<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">Our likely agenda this week will be on portions of the draft final report on which we have broad consensus, so you would have until at least next week before this would be a germane topic for
WG discussion.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">Thanks.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">Best regards, Philip<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">Philip S. Corwin<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">Policy Counsel<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">VeriSign, Inc.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">12061 Bluemont Way<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">Reston, VA 20190<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">703-948-4648/Direct<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">571-342-7489/Cell<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"></span><p class="MsoPlainText">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of George Kirikos<br>
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 4:45 PM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a><br>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Option #6 reminder</p><p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">At the last call, I was asked to resubmit Option #6 for discussion.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">One can read the original proposal at:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-July/000811.html"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-July/000811.html</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">Conceptually, it's very simple. While other options consider what to do if one gets into the "special situation" we've discussed at length, this option is different because it would reduce the number of those special situations, by attempting
to avoid the special situation entirely.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">The domain name owner mitigates the problem by suing "in rem" against the domain name itself, where the IGO isn't a named defendant and thus can't assert immunity at all.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">Option #6 simply modifies 4(k) of the policy, which currently requires that the registrar should lock the domain name if a case is brought against the UDRP complainant (i.e. "in personam"), to lock the domain name if any case is brought
concerning the domain name dispute (in rem or in personam). The only effect of Option #6 is to require the locking in that situation (in rem suit) --- a domain name owner could already sue in rem if they wanted to, but it's uncertain whether or not a registrar
would lock the domain name if they did so. Option #6 removes that uncertainty.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">This would actually be consistent with the first part of 4(k), which didn't specify that the case needed to be brought against the complainant, i.e it only said:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">"The mandatory administrative proceeding requirements set forth in Paragraph 4 shall not prevent either you or the complainant from submitting the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction for independent resolution before such mandatory
administrative proceeding is commenced or after such proceeding is concluded."<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">It was only later on that the language (sloppily, in my opinion) required it to be "in personam", not contemplating that one might submit the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction in another manner.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">Section 18 of the UDRP "Rules" at:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/udrp-rules-2015-03-11-en"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/udrp-rules-2015-03-11-en</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">actually contemplate any type of dispute (could be in personam, could be in rem), using the phrase "any legal proceedings....in respect of a domain-name dispute".<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">Thus, Option #6 is entirely consistent with the spirit and intent of the UDRP rules, and simply fixes language that was overly restrictive due to oversight by the drafters of the policy.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">George Kirikos<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">416-588-0269<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><a href="http://www.leap.com/"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://www.leap.com/</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><a href="mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp</span></a><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
<a href="mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp</a></blockquote></span></body></html>